I'm gonna cheat. I'm gonna look ahead to your response to Arc. You call it a "stem". You say that O is not only less than B but integrated into B. So maybe something like: if it's a dog, then it's an animal. And if it's an animal, then it's a life form.

Awesome - you have highlighted that I need to write rules for these designer logix.

Based on the original logic . . . fuzzy at that, we have new symbols to work with:

O <∫> B <∫> C

<∫> = A stem

The stem is made up of three symbols, the 'less than' sign, the 'Integral' sign, the 'greater than' sign. It just means that what ever is to the left is smaller than that which is to the right but they are integrated. A plant works the opposite way - the stem is larger than the branches - just an analogy.

So O <∫> B <∫> C just means:

C stems from B stems from O

or

O stems to B stems to C.

Everybody is making sense in one way or another . . . and I am starting to wrap my head around this finally.

There are many times when I agree with views that differ from each other. Sometimes the views are similar with slight differences and sometimes views are entirely different and all still make sense. The problem I have with what I just said comes down to contrast.

I still propose that we each have an origin(O) - a lot like the origin on a graph - except that we don't need any dimensions for the definition of our origin - it is purely a starting point of sorts. I further posit that each of us has a biological(B) which is easy for us to agree on. And lastly we should be able to agree on each of us having a conscious(C).

Our O is never changing and everything after this point changes so we can say that:

O <∫> B <∫> C

In other words; O stems to B stems to C.

Keep in mind that I am only using the '~' symbol as a separator to make it easier to read.

Where does the essence fit into this logic?

►Is it ~ O or B or C?

►Else ~ Does it fit somewhere between one of these three slots?

►Or else ~ Is it a combination of all three?

I still can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .

Agreeing with all this except for one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before it's placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness, then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.

My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

I still can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.

Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.All of these are really wonderful when it comes to our human essence. Why are we so eager to discount them to get to what is ethereal and eternal and cannot ever be proven.

I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal. A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.

Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .

Or perhaps that it is human evolution itself which plants the seeds...But i can also see it your way too -- we are the seeds to be planted and human evolution is their gardeners, their caretakers. we must be nourished and nurtured...

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

Arcturus Descending wrote:Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.

So our essence is our DNA!

Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal. A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.

I think it also has to do with the fact that we can't imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

Arcturus Descending"]Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.

gib wrote: So our essence is our DNA!

Eureka. I think that this is true though I didn't think about it along those terms. Human essence would necessarily have to include our DNA among other things which make us physically human.

Or is it all about DNA and genes and how we have so evolved? That is a question for you.

I wonder why it is that we are so quick and so determined to see ourselves MORE about souls/spirits and less about the miracle which human beings have become through evolution. We look for miracles without seeing the one which we are.

AD: I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal.

A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.

gib: I think it also has to do with the fact that we can't imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.

Hmmm You may be partly right about that, gib. I think that it still comes down to the fact that we are so attached to this life, out of fear of losing self, the "I" which we are, fear of the unknown - after all, isn't the greatest unknown what happens after death? And we do not have the courage to live without knowing. We do not have the wisdom to see how Death can teach us to live the greatest life which we have, to live in the here and now.

Isn't it such a waste of life and moments to live in a way where we gamble all on the possibility of their being a hereafter?

PS - Arc, what made you choose such a sad avatar?

There is just something about it that drew me in. What's wrong with being sad sometimes and what's wrong with lying on the wet ground while the rain is coming down? Try it sometimes, it's relaxing and freeing. I have had my moments where I cried while walking in the rain. What is wrong with that, gib? Clouds cry so why can't I?What's wrong with sometimes being a cloud? Just as the cloud needs its catharsis, so do we. Just call me nimbus...stratus.

Besides, maybe it's the poetess in me that likes the drama and passion of it all.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Or is it all about DNA and genes and how we have so evolved? That is a question for you.

No, I don't think it's all about that. In fact, I question whether it's about DNA at all. As you know, I'm a subjectivist, which means I define and understand things from the point of view of my own subjective experiences. When I ask myself: what is my essence? I mean: who do I feel like I am in this moment? DNA, for me, is not the first thing that comes to mind. I don't subjectively feel my DNA. All I can come to in regards to the self I feel like I am is that it is a concept I am projecting onto myself.

^ You might help me out with this. What does it feel like to be you? What do you feel in yourself subjectively that you would say constitutes the core of "you"?

Arcturus Descending wrote:I wonder why it is that we are so quick and so determined to see ourselves MORE about souls/spirits and less about the miracle which human beings have become through evolution.

I blame Descartes. He's the one who convinced everyone that we are our souls and not our bodies. But I definitly think there is a spiritual aspect to our being--we're not just physical--but I agree that there's no reason to think we're MORE our spiritual side than our physical side. I guess it's because our spiritual side is thought to be "within" and therefore closer to our "core".

Arcturus Descending wrote:Isn't it such a waste of life and moments to live in a way where we gamble all on the possibility of their being a hereafter?

Well, it all depends on if the believers are right or not, of course. But I don't think anyone's ever come close to proving the existence of an afterlife. Gambling on an unknown can be an incredible waste. Though I don't think it's necessarily a waste to believe in an afterlife, just to put all one's eggs in that basket. The afterlife I envision is a huge unknown. It might be bliss, it might be hell, it might be an inconceivable experience, it might be nothing. I think that without anything to look forward to in the afterlife, one's focus remains here in this life.

Arcturus Descending wrote:There is just something about it that drew me in. What's wrong with being sad sometimes and what's wrong with lying on the wet ground while the rain is coming down?

Well, it is raining outside right now. Maybe I'll go out to the parking lot. Hope no one runs over me.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I have had my moments where I cried while walking in the rain. What is wrong with that, gib? <-- Nothing, Arc, nothing! Clouds cry so why can't I?What's wrong with sometimes being a cloud? <-- Oh geez Just as the cloud needs its catharsis, so do we. Just call me nimbus...stratus.

Ok, Nimbus (or would you prefer Mrs. Stratus?). You're a cloud and you like to cry sometimes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But one still wonders why someone cries. One wonders: is everything all right?

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.

Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

encode_decode wrote:Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

Thoughts?

They do?

The trick to imagining events pinned to time and space is to imagine a map of time and space that's "static". I mean, if you're imagining things moving about on that spacetime map or things changing, you haven't imagined it right. It should be like a stock market graph--where the vertical axis is the value of the stocks and the horizontal is time. The value of the stocks naturally fluctuate (change) but we don't see any movement on the graph, just mountains.

So imagining a butterfly effect emanating from an event on a spacetime graph would probably look like more events (perhaps smaller ones) that stretch out from the point in time of the original event into the future, leading to other larger events on the way. Is that how you would imagine it?

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

Hey gib, I need more time to think before I can give a definitive answer . ..

gib wrote:

encode_decode wrote:Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

Thoughts?

They do?

The trick to imagining events pinned to time and space is to imagine a map of time and space that's "static". I mean, if you're imagining things moving about on that spacetime map or things changing, you haven't imagined it right. It should be like a stock market graph--where the vertical axis is the value of the stocks and the horizontal is time. The value of the stocks naturally fluctuate (change) but we don't see any movement on the graph, just mountains.

So imagining a butterfly effect emanating from an event on a spacetime graph would probably look like more events (perhaps smaller ones) that stretch out from the point in time of the original event into the future, leading to other larger events on the way. Is that how you would imagine it?

That is how I would imagine it. Fortunately or unfortunately.

gib wrote:My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.

To me an event in time is getting further away from us if it is a past event.

I might be confusing myself man . . . either way I am sure we will arrive at some conclusion.

You know, I had a discussion once with someone here on ILP (I think it was Artimus) in which I explained to him a sense of "change" that can happen without time:

We can talk about the landscape changing. From the northern tip of North American to the southern tip, the landscape changes. It goes from snow and ice, to forest, to planes, to desert (sometimes mountains). But this is a change that happens "simultaneously".

On a static graph, the only difference between a changing landscape and a changing event would be the direction (horizontal or vertical) in which we see the change occurring.

Somehow (I forget how) this lead me to think: to talk about one's origins, one is talking about an event that is "done"--or "complete" for all intents and purposes--so on a static landscape of time and space, it can be represented as an object, something that spans a bit of time, but is complete, and so we can think of it as an unchanging object. One's biology and consciousness, on the other hand, are not yet complete. They continue to change as life goes on. So we are not in a position to think of them as "complete" objects. We are compelled to think of them as things which exist in the moment but are going through change. They continue to be with us at every moment, but become different at every moment because of the change they go through. The "object" remains here, in the moment, not stuck to a specific point in space and time. Perhaps in 100 years from now, my great grandchildren may speak of my life as a fixed event in the past, that though I went through change in my life, my life is now a complete story, written in the past, there to remain the same forever.

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

It looks like most agree that triplicity = essence.All attempts at classifying an universal essence are threefold.

I maintain it is monadic, and that all is the same, life, death - except that life works with subjective time and death with causal time only.

In subjective time there can be the imagination that different things occupy the same space. Subjective time substitutes for space and causes imagination. Death-time merely conveys truth. The light at the ed of the tunnel; being stripped of all illusions, seeing the consequences of ones actions, karma.

Of course it exists. There is no waste of energy only if there there is no compromise of the principle of structural integrity. When life dissolves, what automates life (principle) is consolidated threefold, drawn in from these three dimensions and that compressed piece of self-valuing just enters the atomic spheres (death) to be thrust into subjective time once another opportunity for such a type and degree of integrity to unfold and meet its fate or acquire wings and find destiny.

I say unfold 5-fold. I say don't let the obvious catch up with you so easily. Beat nature to the curve. Set it for new generation to slide more easily into form and beauty and good plenty.

Obvious is walking through a wall and it not working. Nothing that works is really obvious.

Yes, or within it. Our No. 1 essence. lolOn the other side of that coin, of course, would be our spiritual( for lack of a better word) essence.They are probably both tied in together.

AD: I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal. A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.

G: I think it also has to do with the fact that we can't imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.

I may be wrong here but is it possible that one of the reasons we cannot imagine death is because some sort of a fail-safe construct has been built into us? I wonder how many would lose their zeal and desire for living if they were actually able to imagine it - albeit since they cannot know, it probably/possibly could not be"real" ~~ just wishful thinking or fantasy.

Insofar as that *nothingness* which you spoke of, I would imagine that most have felt that at some point in their life - that nothingness, emptiness, seemingly never-ending experience of death or dying while living. I know I have. I think that it might at times be a good thing to imagine our selves as dead, lying in a grave covered with dirt. We might all come to a different version of that but I wonder how it would come to affect our living experience ~~ I mean in a positive way? But I suppose that just might depend on the individual.

PS - Arc, what made you choose such a sad avatar?

See what I mean about the death fantasy? Why would you necessarily equate rain with sadness, gib?I love the rain. That avatar to me represents joy and rapture. It is a partaking of something so natural and breathtaking. My head is back to invite the rain into myself.

Is it possible that when you said the above words you were feeling a kind of sadness within? Maybe ~~ maybe not. You probably would not even remember now. Possible?

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

Arcturus Descending wrote:I may be wrong here but is it possible that one of the reasons we cannot imagine death is because some sort of a fail-safe construct has been built into us? I wonder how many would lose their zeal and desire for living if they were actually able to imagine it - albeit since they cannot know, it probably/possibly could not be"real" ~~ just wishful thinking or fantasy.

Well, there's two possibilities: either there's an afterlife or there isn't. If there is, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with imagining our ongoing existence after death. We'd go on experiencing whatever there is to experience. If there isn't, then it's a paradox to imagine our ongoing existence. To try it out, one would have to say: well, here I am dead. So this is what it's like. Which of course couldn't be the case since death, in this scenario, is equivalent to non-existence, to not feeling anything. You couldn't imagine "being there", let alone saying to yourself: this is what it's like.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

PS - Arc, what made you choose such a sad avatar?

See what I mean about the death fantasy? Why would you necessarily equate rain with sadness, gib?I love the rain. That avatar to me represents joy and rapture. It is a partaking of something so natural and breathtaking. My head is back to invite the rain into myself.

Is it possible that when you said the above words you were feeling a kind of sadness within? Maybe ~~ maybe not. You probably would not even remember now. Possible?

If I recall, you had a different avatar when I said that. I remember a girl lying in the dirt while rain poured over her, and it said something like: I lay in the rain because no one can see me cry.

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.-Milo Yiannopoulus

Awe the ideal Modal logic...Essentially Variable Constants are all simultaneously changing.Presentation and Representation MatterSelf-actualization of essence presentation and representation. (What is, is, What is.)(keep in mind)

There is no constant that underlies the flux

".......................Not even physics?"

Even physics is fundamentally change... and it would be hard to pin down your unique "essence" by looking at the physics of your body. Interestingly though, the physical body is in large part where we get the idea that we have an essence. "Essences" are really just identities. We project them onto objects. This has the essence of a rock whereas that has the essence of a tree, and that over there has the essence of my tree, the one I used to climb as a child. Identities. (Identifies.) We do the same with people--that is John, that is Sarah, that is Steve--we identify the bodies, and like with all other objects, we think of them as "constants". This is no less true for our own bodies when we look at ourselves in the mirror. Our essences acquire (and adapt.) the uniqueness of our character by associations with all the peripheral aspects of ourselves--Steve works at a power plant, he's a rather rude person, he dresses well, etc. <-- All this goes towards who Steve is and colors his essence in a unique hue. (as representation.)

Actualization is key to have any determinism in obscurity, to have concluded real consensus and have the slightest awareness of tested observation, inquiry, and/or information. Clarify. Contest. Conclude. provide. Prove. percept. Pragmatic theory i hope isn't lost. [Why is progressivism said to be the proof of pragmatism] Well this is ancient philosophy kiddos. We've come to understand that we've all got an essence or identity to have been adorned and underlined (presented and represented) by humanity. You see we all share the same type of precognitive sense of ability. Oh I understand fully we've all got weaknesses and strengths. I full-heartedly believe in this subject. All my life i try and find justification for/and/to as why we Want to want, Need to Need, and have full comprehensive assurance that everything I know is the truth. But this world and it's actualization is of what you make them. You can go on and call a dog a cat and it be something sorta like an essence of your own choosing. It is a dog and believe us it's a dog. But if to somebody with absolutely no fundamentals say they can have it become a dog, named cat, and now cat to us is a dog, which is illogical i know (sarcastically stating) in the literal sense. Boom. So, now what? Is all rationality really lost? Is all logic wrong? At that point? Was it serious enough to even think about anymore? And how do we conceive such an undiscerning dilemma, and one not even of any actual threat to our own understanding, significance, and totally out of our control?

(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.